New Server Setup Consideration

hello,

i have 2 servers replace next year: dc , file server. instead of purchasing 2 separate servers, i'm trying convince superiors should go single server , use hyper-v our purposes. had no previous experience hyper-v hey, gotta learn somehow:)

the setup go this:

1) host have hyper-v server role installed

2) 1 guest server 2008 r2 domain controller dns, dhcp , nps server roles.

3) second guest server 2012 r2 file server dfs replication. file server have small usage servers backup place users files. no extensive read/write take place on it, other dfs replication each night server in different office. remote office have server 2012 r2. far have been using server 2003 in both offices robocopy running every night. want switch dfs.

important: office won't have more 50 users.

i pretty know intend propse, problem have at moment choosing correct disk setup. server want buy have 8 disks and i using hardware raid (specifically dell perc h730 controller). variations considering:

1) 8 disks of same size, combined raid 5 or raid 10 , virtual hard drives installed on same logical disk os.

2) 2 drives of lesser capacity combined into a raid 1 array for os , virtual disks, difference being set raid 5 (or 10 rather 5) array remaining 6 drives , use them passthrough disk file server vm.

3) 4 drives of lesser capacity, combined in 2 raid 1 arrays (one array os , second virtual disk files) , again 4 disks act passthrough disk virtual file server.

i think option 2 or 3 preferred, hear someon more experienced.

thanks in advance in matter.

kind regards,

wojciech.

hi,

generally see users use raid1 os , raid10 data (rather raid5).

raid1 os failover. raid5 slower raid10 if data disk needs access lot, raid10 better (but spend more hard disks also).

in current situation option 2 seems better.

---

if have feedback on our support, please send tnfsl@microsoft.com.

Windows Server  >  Setup Deployment